OT - I'd like to find out who's willing to replace him.

In article
tatelephone,
says...

Talk about a job as pre-doomed as being head of NASA:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/...pology/?hpt=T1

Yea, he's boned.

Jeff
--
The only decision you'll have to make is
Who goes in after the snake in the morning?

Talk about a job as pre-doomed as being head of NASA:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/...pology/?hpt=T1

Pat

On 6/23/2010 4:13 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article
tatelephone,
says...

Talk about a job as pre-doomed as being head of NASA:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/...pology/?hpt=T1

Yea, he's boned.

Now, General Petraeus gets to take a crack at it again:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,5630483.story
No wonder he keeled over in a dead faint in Congress... he probably saw
this coming with the inevitability of a Great White Shark heading
towards its prey.
"You get into the cage...cage goes into the water...shark's in the water.
....Farewell, my fine military career...for I shall see you no more..."

Pat

On 6/23/2010 2:31 PM, Pat Flannery wrote:

No wonder he keeled over in a dead faint in Congress... he probably saw
this coming with the inevitability of a Great White Shark heading
towards its prey.
"You get into the cage...cage goes into the water...shark's in the water.
...Farewell, my fine military career...for I shall see you no more..."

I like this:
"I welcome debate," Obama said, "but I won't tolerate division."
Uhhh...Blackbird, doesn't any good debate _start_ with division
regarding what should be done?

Pat

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:01:50 -0800, Pat Flannery
wrote:

"I welcome debate," Obama said, "but I won't tolerate division."
Uhhh...Blackbird, doesn't any good debate _start_ with division
regarding what should be done?

The President was being polite calling it 'division'. That was
insubordination in no uncertain terms. My god, what was McCrystal
thinking? I think historians are going to be trying to figure this one
out for a very long time.

Brian

On Jun 23, 7:28*pm, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:01:50 -0800, Pat Flannery
wrote:

"I welcome debate," Obama said, "but I won't tolerate division."
Uhhh...Blackbird, doesn't any good debate _start_ with *division
regarding what should be done?

The President was being polite calling it 'division'. That was
insubordination in no uncertain terms. My god, what was McCrystal
thinking? I think historians are going to be trying to figure this one
out for a very long time.

Brian

mc crystal will be noted as a visonary.

if your going to make war overhelming force is the best way

wrote:
On Jun 23, 7:28 pm, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:01:50 -0800, Pat Flannery
wrote:

"I welcome debate," Obama said, "but I won't tolerate division."
Uhhh...Blackbird, doesn't any good debate _start_ with division
regarding what should be done?

What Brian said. Calling the VP "Bite Me" and the like isn't division,
it's disrespect.

You have issues with the policy (which btw, for the most part Obama bought
into McCrystal's vision on COINT) you address it privately. You don't call
your boss's other advisors clowns.



The President was being polite calling it 'division'. That was
insubordination in no uncertain terms. My god, what was McCrystal
thinking? I think historians are going to be trying to figure this
one out for a very long time.

Brian

mc crystal will be noted as a visonary.

if your going to make war overhelming force is the best way

Which is NOT what McCrystal was advocating.

McCrystal was not a bad officer, just didn't know when to shut up.

There's a right way and a wrong way to conduct yourself, especially if
someone is WRITING AN ARTICLE about you.


--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

In article ,
says...
What Brian said. Calling the VP "Bite Me" and the like isn't
division,
it's disrespect.

You have issues with the policy (which btw, for the most part Obama bought
into McCrystal's vision on COINT) you address it privately. You don't call
your boss's other advisors clowns.

Sure you do, you just make sure you do it behind closed doors (officer's
club?) and not anywhere near a reporter.

My guess is that he wanted out and wanted to "distance himself" from the
administration while doing so. If that was the goal, he managed to do
it in a very public way.

Jeff
--
The only decision you'll have to make is
Who goes in after the snake in the morning?

On Jun 23, 8:07*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Talk about a job as pre-doomed as being head of NASA:

There's an idea for how he could continue to lead a life of public
service as a civilian...

John Savard

On Jun 23, 5:28*pm, Brian Thorn wrote:

The President was being polite calling it 'division'. That was
insubordination in no uncertain terms. My god, what was McCrystal
thinking?

That brave American boys fighting the terrorist scum murdering
innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan were dying needlessly?

This sort of thing can warp one's objectivity, and drive one to react
in an emotional manner.

You don't get to be a General in the United States Army by being
dispassionate, objective, and unemotional by nature; such people
become scientists and engineers, or perhaps - given the details of the
qualities required - civil servants or lawyers, and if fate makes them
soldiers, they are not particularly effective soldiers.

So, while I can't condone his conduct, even if I am sympathetic to his
analysis, these things happen. If you want them to happen less often,
if you ask your soldiers to fight, do everything you can to help them
win.

You don't often see a senior civil servant resigning in a huff or
speaking out of turn, say, because children are being sexually abused
in foster homes more often than necessary because the government
involved considers keeping government expenditures (and taxes) down
more urgent. If people like _that_ were made generals of our armies,
though, you would see the *troops* mutiny considerably more often.

Better the odd McChrystal or MacArthur than that. Far better.

John Savard